As they should be allowed to, so long as they are not stealing peoples content. :2 cents:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=896755
20K

The file sharing sites agree, because they are only getting bolder. Take a look at either of these sites...

http://milf-city.com/

http://allkindsofxxx.com/

Try downloading and watching any of the videos on either site, and they both have a nice amount of traffic. Not only are they stealing and uploading the videos, but they are watermarking the videos with their site's URL and logo.

That is pretty much the ultimate fuck you. They are so confident that nothing is going to be done that they don't even care about safe harbor, they just rip the videos, upload them themselves, and watermark them with their site's URL so when they do post them on pornbb or the like they are getting more traffic. Pretty fucking ballsy...

This is what I think about. What is the point of any organization that supposedly polices the internet for porn getting in the hands of minors when there are SO many ways for it to get there?? It's absolutely ludicrous.

That's pretty fucked up.

Crazy MILF!

well they have sponsors backing them up look at all the links and the sponsors on sites like that are still loved at the shows and some get awards so why should they not be bold?

it will happen and the problem is they wont say the tube industry is doing this, they wil lsay the adult industry is doing this.This industry will not learn til there is a big smack down,its not will they take action its when.

If you slap your watermark on a clip then as far as I'm concerned they should be considered a "producer" of that content and have to keep 2257 records. Makes no sense whatsoever that we all have to comply with 2257 and then everyone else doesn't.

I ask again...knowing what we know now...how many studios would like a do-over on the appeal to 2257 that made it so "secondary producers" wouldn't have to keep 2257 records?

cliff notes on this thread?

lotza tubes

When I was young and stupid (like 2 years ago), I was totally 100% against government regulation. Now I am 100% pro-regulation.

We had the FBI raid our office and came out clean in the first sweep of 2257 inspections.

We'd all be in better shape right now, had a few assholes been hauled off to jail.

:2 cents:

That would all depend on your definition of "asshole" in this instance.

If you mean tubes, or anyone else using stolen copyrighted adult content, than yeah, I'd love like hell to see those thieving bastards get an FBI visit.

But watch what you wish for.

There's lots of honest mom & pop operations out there (some of which are just barely getting by) that might not have all their 2257 i's dotted and t's crossed.

Hell, the newest version of 2257 is all but impossible to fully comply with and you know it.

Like I said, watch what you wish for.

They'd regulate your cross sales, mind you.

:2 cents:

it's amazing how many full scenes extreme tube has from the evil angel catalog.

When they did our inspection not every single record was in place by the letter of the law. As long as you can show reasonable proof that the people you were shooting were definitively over 18 you should be alright.

It took just over 3 clicks to find 3 of our videos on there too.

http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...key=1700933461
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=742552843
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...c3c095c9e6d59d

Some of them still had the freakin' watermarks on them.

Lame.

good summary of DMCA from a website owners point of view for complying with DMCA, but you can also view it through the eyes of a content producer looking to enforce DMCA:

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=74294 [view]

this was an interesting point of the article:

---

10. Do Not Receive A Financial Benefit Directly Attributable To Infringing Activity Within The Company's Control

If an online service provider has the right and ability to control infringing activity, it is eligible for the safe harbor if it does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to such infringing activity. The "direct financial benefit" issue is complex and necessarily dependent on applicable facts and circumstances. Although this issue still remains to be clarified by the courts, Viacom has made arguments regarding direct financial benefit in its lawsuit against YouTube. To the extent that the Viacom v. YouTube case results in a decision, this issue would be one of the more interesting DMCA legal questions the case addresses.

--

whether a legit community site that allows user uploads or an illegal tube site, both generate revenue from the advertisement around the content.

some illegal tube sites offer a "premium" version that gives access to longer videos, better quality, etc.. this would certainly violate DMCA safe harbour provisions for a paid-membership model using stolen content (oh the irony of paysites who used usenet content inside members areas and now crying foul about DMCA)

---

takedowns have to occur in a "reasonable period of time"... 24-72 hours.

content producers could coordinate their DMCA notices to do a "DMCA bombing" at the same time.

you would have to have a shared IP attorney ready to then file a lawsuit if the DMCA process wasn't followed. Having a large amount of complaints that were disproportionate to the "legal" content on a tube site, could show that the site owners do know about infringing material.


Fight the YMCA!

Darn, the link is dead. I wish I could find a list of all the biggest say 150 illegal tube sites


spaz

this thread inspired a Fight the Blog blog post.

i started a new thread for it:

Putting tube sites into historical perspective

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=920207


Fight the link challenged!

I agree with all of this, in particular, on the premium areas and the "for profit" model.

Funny, the first one's gone already. You that quick on the DMCA trigger? Or are there eyes watching... :winkwink:

As far as regulation goes, I'd be perfectly fine with a regulation banning free adult content. All tours censored, any nudity behind a pay barrier, NO freebies... would be beautiful. Alas, all the non-US'ers would cover that base.

Just face it, Brazzers controls and ARE the adult industry.

Wow.... I just followed the links you posted and watched quite a few of the FTVGirls videos. I have to say, the quality sucks but it sure beats paying $19.95.

I read an article in a mainstream video mag. They spoke about how the success of you tube and the relatively poor quality of the video shows its not hidef that matters is the quality of the actual content. You are correct and for some reason this industry doesnt understand that.

why don't you hire some HA's in canada to sort them out?

But wouldn't this mean that all US sites lose pretty much all their traffic?

(At the risk of sounding gay...)

Hence, my use of the word "alas."

I agree wholeheartedly with this, a surfer's going to rub a much better one out to a lo-def clip of something he's really into, than a hi-def crystal clear 1920x1080 clip of a butterfly. Content is much more important than quality. That's been obvious for years now with MGPs. If quality was more important than content, nobody would surf MGPs. Now, the fact that it's free also helps. But content will always trump quality in a head-to-head.

Very true. If the scene is hot enough, I can rough up the suspect to a low-def tape dub from 1970.

look on the side of every redtube video. Redtubes staff have been posting these videos themselves, and ended up winning their last court case. Fuck that, they destroyed teen revenue. Face it, you guys can not beat "illegal" tubes. They are here to stay and theirs nothing you can do. Nothing! Brazers realizes this and has since adjusted to the bullshit.

goodness.. :helpme us

violence is the only solution.... severe physical harm

Whats up with http://www.teenrevenue.com ?

They got one of our 40 minute videos on there:
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=941710103

Good for them

I just ran into some production people at the gym who told me some interesting things:

1. They say, that Brazzers has been skirting US 2257 laws and shoot girls from overseas with no ID. Some of the girls they shoot have been doing scenes for Brazzers first, then getting an ID, and then working for everyone else. I guess being Canadian they are immune to 2257 laws, even through they shoot in Vegas.

2. Also, I'm not sure of the laws on this but I believe it is against the law to shoot live set shows in Nevada, or that's what I am told. I don't know if this is true, but it would seem that every strip club in Vegas would have one if they were legit.

:2 cents:

You keep saying that over and over, but do you honestly believe Brazzers is sweating that in the least?

Let me put it this way...Brazzers already operates in a manner that proves they don't give a shit what anyone thinks, nor do they care about getting sued.

You said hire some Hell's Angels to sort them out...you don't think they could do the same thing to you? As a matter of fact I'll put my money on them actually doing it over any of the shit talkers on here, since they have already proven they don't give a fuck.

Not trying to stir up shit man, but this isn't a mob B movie, and no one is hiring anyone to break anyone's legs. I'm pretty sure Brazzers can go to any show and no one will do shit. There are plenty of options available if someone wants to get creative and go the legal route, but other than that save your breath, because they have the financial means to get way uglier than you do...

dudes i don't understand you (especially US based dudes). In the USA people are suing for most stupid reasons in the world (like getting burned with hot coffe, or that iphone doens't have mms support with at&t, and millions of others ) So why the hell instead of yapping at the boards don't start legal fight with assholes stealing your content?
Movie/music producers figthed that youtube and soon rapidshare has to ACTIVELY work to prevent copyrighted material from even showing on their site (instead of waiting for dmca complaint). With that sites it's nearly impossible to do that by human (google is working on some algoritms), however such scumbags as brazzers has relatively small movies so they could put dedicated worker to approve/disapprove movies, but first court has to force them to do so.

pretty ballsy
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...5065399b0d1e48